It's not that cut and dry. While one of the "Heller 5," I worry that Justice Kennedy could be swayed by public safety arguments.

I certainly didn't mean to imply there's anything cut and dry about any SCOTUS decision. Kennedy, now as then, is the key swing vote. While the public safety arguments are wildly in favor of allowing carry, I would never be so blind as to state the facts matter to the Court. Kennedy, as with all the justices, will vote based on his personal beliefs, not what the Constitution says or what the facts show.

This case has made SCOTUSBlogs 'Petitions to watch' as the first highlighted case... featuring "petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted""At its April 12, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Second Amendment limits on licensing restrictions for carrying handguns outside the home"http://www.scotusblo...-april-12-2013/tick...tock... time is running out for the antis I think.

Legally, perhaps. Politically, ain't gonna happen. There's way more than enough pro-gun IL legicritters to block any may-issue bill. And if no new law happens, the whole state goes Vermont Carry...so the grabbers are the ones strongly motivated to make a deal.

Here's how I see the fallout:

* Illinois: Madigan now has to calculate whether to appeal the state's loss in Moore to the US Supremes. If she doesn't the 7th Circuit's holding in Moore stands, which means all existing IL carry bans (open or concealed) vanish in...what, July, right? And it's dicey whether any new law will replace them at all, and if it does it'll be shall-issue, not may-issue.

* California: there are now three carry cases before the 9th Circuit, two involving California. Because the Supremes have decided not to do anything (yet) they now have no grounds to hold off those decisions. In both the California cases lower-court Federal judges said that fair access to concealed carry could be withheld only so long as open-carry (unloaded) was legal. Well the next year, the morons in the California legislature banned unloaded open carry. Whoops. So those are now major hot potatos.

* Hawaii: This is probably the only state now at risk of going may-issue based on the "logic" in Kachalski. Technically they're may-issue now, in practice they're zero-issue (which is at issue in the 9th Circuit case involving them, right?).

* Maryland: Alan Gura is trying for a reconsideration in Woolard en banc. With the US Supremes side-stepping the question for now there's a better chance of an en banc hearing.

* The Remaining May-Issue States: Alabama is now finally going formally shall-issue (via legislation) after being practically shall-issue for years. The remaining may-issue states will rely on Kachalsky for a while...Mass, DE and what, a few others left?

Upshot: I think the US Supremes are going to let things shake out in the lower courts a little more before speaking on this issue. I think they want to see what the Woolard en banc thing holds, see what the 9th does in their three cases, etc. Remember, the exact method of saying there's a "right to bear arms" is complex: is it a right to "Vermont Carry"? A right to open carry where concealed permits aren't a right? And so on.

I think (I sure as hell hope!) that Kachalski just came too early in the cycle.

It's an evil thing to say, but for the sake of all of us, I'd ALMOST prefer Alabama went the other way... May-Issue, specific reason, with a bit of Jim Crow application. We all know May-Issue has inherent discrimination involved. The problem is, that discrimination isn't as visible and vilified as it needs to be to be recognized by the people not directly involved and affected.

Absent any other optimistic possibility, I have to hope the court is waiting for Woollard and Moore to fully ripen so they can settle them all at once. This is the only possible silver lining I can imagine before folks start sharpening their pitchforks.

* Illinois: Madigan now has to calculate whether to appeal the state's loss in Moore to the US Supremes. If she doesn't the 7th Circuit's holding in Moore stands, which means all existing IL carry bans (open or concealed) vanish in...what, July, right? And it's dicey whether any new law will replace them at all, and if it does it'll be shall-issue, not may-issue.

This is the most interesting piece for me. Is Madigan emboldened by the denial of cert? If so, does she take her train-wreck of a case before SCOTUS? Most of us agree Moore and Wollard are 'cleaner' cases and would be even more likely to meet with success before SCOTUS than Kachalsky, so speaking personally, I would love to watch her walk into what I feel is tantamount to a trap.

Al Norris,
I'm new to this site, but not to gun rights, etc.
Thank you for your great thread, and not just being knee-jerk, but reflecting on the reality of the situation.

People forget, in the COTUS, the preamble states:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That means, hey, we shouldn't let murderous psychos have guns.

Those who think that the village idiot was allowed a gun when the founding fathers wrote the 2A are out of touch... nor were slaves allowed to, obviously. It was already a regulated right.

The truth, however, is the the COTUS is a great document... but the right to defend one's self goes deeper than this great, yet flawed, document. Some call it "Supreme Law", call it what you will, but a free man will defend himself.

Now, this carry issue, it could be a lynchpin to victory... and I'm happy to see NYS having some positive movement after decades of decay regarding the 2A.

Now, this carry issue, it could be a lynchpin to victory... and I'm happy to see NYS having some positive movement after decades of decay regarding the 2A.

Help me out here, how is there progress in NY? They completely ban possession by anyone without a NY State pistol license (which they don't grant to non-residents) Their citizen have NO certain path to exercise a right to self defense outside the home, and if they do so without the unattainable license, it is a felony with a greater punishment than pedaphilia.

Agreed with what Jim is saying except for Woollard's chances with the en banc. I'd think with Kachalsky booted then any miracle longshot with an en banc just evaporated.
As much as I hate to say it-NY's brief against cert. was correct when it pointed out this wasn't a split with Moore, and they also pointed out there were other cases out there that the court could review when the issue percolated some more. Probably enough to get a few of our justices to pass for now at least.

"The political reality is that there will never, ever, as long as the United States of America governs the country, be legal guns in the holsters, whether open or concealed, of citizens walking the streets of New York City.

New York City is "different," "special." It's the headquarters of the United Nations. It has the New York Stock Exchange, Broadway, Times Square, Central Park. It's one of America's two truly international cities. It should properly be considered as America's Hong Kong.

Until SAF and Gura recognize this basic political reality and craft a means of allowing New York City, or just Manhattan Island, not to be governed by the same gun laws that bind the rest of the state, Gura's going to lose, and our rights are going to pay the price.

In Kachalsky, at any level, the court will first look at the case and consider the outcome of granting Gura his desired remedy. If this remedy includes citizens carrying loaded firearms up Seventh Avenue, he's gone too far, and he's going to lose.

If the case were filed blind, where no state names, city names, party names were present in the case, where the pleadings contained merely the text of the disputed law, argument and the remedy requested, he'd probably win the case in a walk. Sadly, cases are not decided in abstract detachment."

This case was a foolish and reckless gamble with our rights. It was an obvious loser from conception, and this ruling does far more harm than Heller did good.

New York City is "different," "special." It's the headquarters of the United Nations. It has the New York Stock Exchange, Broadway, Times Square, Central Park. It's one of America's two truly international cities. It should properly be considered as America's Hong Kong.

Until SAF and Gura recognize this basic political reality and craft a means of allowing New York City, or just Manhattan Island, not to be governed by the same gun laws that bind the rest of the state, Gura's going to lose, and our rights are going to pay the price.

We could always cede it to the UN - with US citizens being given lifetime visas for museum and restaurant visits...

No it did not. A denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits. The petition applying for the writ, and the opposition brief, don't even argue the merits. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, and did not hear the case. That is not "a victory at the Supreme Court" except perhaps to people who know nothing about legal process.

The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. Of those it grants ceriorari in and hears about 70 to 80 cases.

__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 15, 2013 at 07:30 PM.
Reason: clarify

Frank. Frankly, you don't live here. Had to unload 3 rounds from each 10 round nanny mag today. If I get caught with 7 rounds in my 10 round nanny mag the penalty is worse than incest among other heinous crimes.

Have it your way, Frank. If we accept, arguendo, that New York didn't win, it's yet incontrovertible that gun rights lost. Gura was banking on the quite sophomoric premise that "circuit split! circuit split! circuit split!" was going to compel the Supreme Court to accept his case. Of course, the Supreme Court lets many circuit splits stand, and the Supreme Court was never going to allow guns in times Square, so Gura's confidence was well wide of the mark, and his brinksmanship spectacularly failed.

See if you have a lawyer friend who can explain in more detail the consequences of not receiving Supreme Court review. See if this friend can explain Shepardizing, and the treatment Kachalsky will receive.

By the way, the Supreme Court opinion was fortunately not authored, as it would have been worse for our rights than the appellate ruling.

Gura and Gottlieb far overplayed their hands, and gun rights were fronting the bankroll. Now, we all pay because Gottlieb wanted to pose with another check.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.